To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action is being taken to reduce rates of truancy.

My right hon. and learned Friend is providing grant of £ 6·5 million for projects in 31 local education authorities to improve attendance in designated schools. We shall shortly be issuing to local authorities and others guidance on education supervision orders which the Children Act 1989 will provide from October.

I thank my hon. Friend for that detailed and helpful response. Does he think that local education authorities are playing their full part in ensuring that children attend school and, when they reach school, stay there? Will my hon. Friend consider publishing a table by local education authorities to show truancy levels?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children turn up at school. Local authorities have the power to prosecute, but not all of them appear to do so, although they should. I shall consider publishing a table. We need better information and parents and the public are supposed to know which local authorities are performing properly.

Is the Minister aware that questions that I have tabled asking for a national assessment on truancy have not been answered, on the basis that the Government do not collect those statistics nationally, so there is no clear picture of the problem? Does he agree that one of the biggest problems is that many youngsters who play truant—it is estimated that there are about 100,000 at any one time—work illegally, often because of unemployment in the area or for other reasons? That problem needs urgent attention.

On the first part of the hon. Lady's question, we are considering whether we can collect and publish the figures on a national basis. At present, they are not collected or published uniformly by the local education authorities. On the second part of the hon. Lady's question, she is right that there is a link between truancy and criminality. It is, therefore, important to ensure that more pupils turn up at school.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some parents do not know that their children are playing truant from school? Will he ensure that everything possible is done by schools and others to ensure that parents are informed immediately absences are noted and are encouraged to do everything they can to take responsibility for their children's future attendance in education?

My hon. Friend makes a good case for further guidance, which should include reminding parents of their responsibilities and ensuring that the school informs them as quickly as possible.

Will the Minister confirm that he has no evidence of the pairing system operating in schools in Britain? Is he aware that if there were a pairing system called "organised truancy" and the rates were as bad as they are for voting in the House of Commons, the attendance rate in schools would be less than 50 per cent? The truth is that there is not a school in Britain with less than 80 per cent. attendance.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the definition of truancy. We shall have to consider whether the regulations need to be clarified to distinguish between absence that is justified—the child may be sick or have a good reason for being absent—and the sort of unauthorised absence that the Patronage Secretary might recognise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have achieved grant-maintained status.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have become grant maintained since the passing of the Education Reform Act.

Fifty schools are now operating as grant-maintained schools compared with 20 this time last year. My predecessor and I have approved a further 10 applications.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that grant-maintained status is ideal for mature and well-managed schools that want and deserve greater control over their affairs and that local management of schools has proved to countless head teachers just how popular the concept is? Is not it extraordinary that the Opposition apparently want to deny that greater freedom of choice to schools, parents and pupils?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Mr. Simpson, the headmaster of Wilson's school, Sutton, has said that grant-maintained status is an unqualified success and he is happy with it. He and many other heads are finding that being in proper control of their schools is an exciting prospect. Grant-maintained status is popular with staff and parents and many of those schools are heavily over-subscribed with applicants. Following the success of the first grant-maintained schools, many more will apply for that status. I share my hon. Friend's belief that it is extraordinary that the Labour party should still be organising such persistent campaigns in defence of nothing more than local authority bureaucracy.

I welcome the expansion in grant-maintained schools, which is due to their popularity with parents, but will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the fact that in opposing grant-maintained schools and almost every other choice in education, including the independent sector, city technology colleges and grammar schools, the Labour party is really telling parents, "You will get what we deign to give you and, effectively, there will be no choice whatever"?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party has consistently opposed giving more autonomy and independence to the management of individual schools, thereby opposing schools becoming more responsive to parents and the local community. Its attitude towards the assisted places scheme and CTCs shows that envy overcomes all appreciation of academic excellence in our schools.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the countless numbers of head teachers who have been "delighted" by grant-maintained status is about 50 out of approximately 6,500 eligible in the first year of the scheme? Will he further confirm that it is easy to be delighted by grant-maintained status when one is bribed by the Government to the tune of three, four or in some cases even 10 times the capital expenditure allocation for state schools?

I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that another 54 ballots are pending and applications are increasing rapidly. It is indicative of the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary bitterness towards the concept that he uses the term bribery for perfectly sensible funding arrangements. It is extraordinary that he and many of his political friends in local authorities continue to show such bitterness towards local control of schools.

The Secretary of State must be honest about the matter. How can he answer the complaints of parents in local education authority achools who, in the Prime Minister's new classless Britain with education at the top of the agenda, know that their schools receive only one third or one quarter of the capital resources of grant-maintained schools? Why do their schools have leaking roofs, unmaintained buildings and a lack of capital while grant-maintained schools get all the money? That is not a classless, equal, fair education system.

I am always honest in my replies here and elsewhere. I seek to maintain my George Washington record in these matters. I accept that often when we consider applications for grant-maintained status we find that the schools have been neglected for many years and we pay particlar attention to the capital applications from those schools. The proportion that results is not on the scale that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but when we set up a new, autonomous, grant-maintained school, we should put right the neglect of years and put capital into that school. All that is capital investment in state schools. The capital allocations to local authorities for their maintained schools have been dramatically increased as a result of my predecessor's settlement. There is nothing unfair in what we propose.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the two out of 50 schools in my constituency which have gone for grant-maintained status are delighted that they have done so? They have been able to appoint new staff and broaden their subject areas and they have got away from the dead hand of the bureaucratic Lancashire county council. They can now choose the courses that they want rather than have them foisted on them by bureaucrats.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She adds to the growing number of examples of schools where the transition has been a great success. It has given a boost in morale to teachers, parents and everybody associated with such schools and that has led to a big increase in applications from all over the country.

Is not one reason why, after 12 years of Conservative rule, the British people have less faith in their education system than the people of any other country in Europe have in theirs, the intense and corrupt double standard that the Government operate on the education of the nation's children? Despite what the Secretary of State said, there is bribery to encourage schools to opt out. That is in complete breach of categorical undertakings given by the Secretary of State's predecessors that there would be financial neutrality between the funding of LEAs and grant-maintained schools. As long as this intense discrimination continues, is not it clear that the Prime Minister's conversion to the importance of education is a cynical and hollow sham?

I share fully the public's concern about educational standards and it is important that we improve them. I believe that the public's concern is based largely on their reaction to 20 years of the trendy, left-wing, misguided education policies with which the Labour party and its supporters have been closely associated and still are. We are now introducing a national, broad-based curriculum with a proper system of testing and reporting to parents and introducing local management for schools, which will give real authority to teachers and governors, thereby allowing them to put things right in their schools. The hon. Gentleman cheapens the debate by using words like bribery to describe the financial arrangements. He does that to disguise the fact that he has nothing to offer to reverse some of the more unfortunate factors of the past 20 years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with the teaching unions about education policy.

My right hon. and learned Friend has frequent meetings with the teaching unions on a wide range of educational policy matters.

The Secretary of State referred to the trendy left-wing policies emanating from the Labour party. When my hon. Friend contemplates the advice that his Department receives from the teacher unions about education policy and the weight and merit that he should attach to it, will he bear in mind the fact that 25 per cent. of those who are individual members of the Labour party are also members of teaching unions? Is not this an unhealthy relationship?

I am very interested in the information that my hon. Friend has made available. It goes a long way towards explaining the policies of the Labour party. I have some understanding of the considerable difficulties that the Opposition have, as I, too, am subject to conflicting strands of advice from different teacher unions. The Labour party must find it difficult to reconcile the advice that it has from its paymasters.

Does the Minister accept that, when he next goes to the teachers' organisations, he will have to discuss the statement by the Under-Secretary of State that there will be no state-funded schools in three years? Does he also agree that children have the right to have education when they are three years old and that this is what teachers advocate?

My hon. Friend rightly said that all schools will, in future, be able to benefit from control of budgets at local level. We know that there will be better value for money and better provision of education locally, as schools will not have to rely on the artificial levels of bureaucracy suggested by LEAs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has regarding the action taken by school governing bodies to implement the DES circular "Management of the School Day".

The circular explained how governing bodies might alter the length of the school day and how they should provide adequate teaching time within the day. Some governing bodies have begun to take action on this—others should do so.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he encourage governors to take even more action on this matter? Does he agree that governors have a responsibility to ensure that pupils in schools have options during the school day?

Yes. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that more than a quarter of all primary schools do not yet provide the minimum teaching time. If necessary, we shall have to give statutory force to the circular published last year.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is no legal minimum for the length of the school week? Is not that an omission from current educational legislation? Would not it do a great deal more to ensure that poor standards in schools were tightened if he introduced legislation to deal with that?

At present primary school weeks can vary from 20 to 25 hours. Why should parents in one area get less teaching for their children than those in another? Unless schools are prepared to meet the new minimum targets we shall have to consider whether to give them statutory force.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he received from Manchester city council during 1990 regarding the 1990–91 and the 1991–92 capital allocations.

A delegation from Manchester local education authority and other representatives called on my predecessor on 4 April 1990 and the Department has also received representations in connection with individual projects submitted for the 1991–92 annual capital guideline.

In view of the detailed representations that he has received, how does the Minister justify making a paltry capital allocation to Manchester of £5 million, compared with its realistic bid of £33 million? That decision was described by the chief education officer as a disaster for the education service in Manchester. Does not he understand the anger of parents who cannot get their children into local schools because of lack of investment? Will he receive further representations from me and the education department in Manchester to ensure that in future the Government make a capital allocation which meets the needs of local children rather than at the whim of the Treasury or of Government?

No LEA gets all it asks for. Manchester will get £4·7 million next year, compared with £3 million this year. Manchester would have received more if it had not underestimated the number of sub-standard school places in its bid, if it had bothered to complete the required proposal forms for four further major education building projects when asked to do so and if it had published statutory proposals in respect of the Ducie high school project, which it was advised would be supported and which it has still not done.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Manchester has below-average education expenditure? Does he find that difficult to justify, considering its high community charge of £425, which is far above the national average?

Yes. It is rather odd that although Manchester's community charge is higher than the average for metropolitan districts, Manchester spends less than half its total budget on education.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations about the teaching of history in the national curriculum.

I have received various representations on the draft order for history in the national curriculum. The statutory consultation process ends on 15 February and I shall take account of all the responses before publishing the final order.

Why has the Secretary of State interfered with the history content of the national curriculum and why has he chosen to focus on the first half of the 20th century? Why will children no longer be able to learn about events of the past 30 to 40 years? Does he accept that those events are of just as much historical importance as other events in history and will he reconsider his decision?

It has been decided that the Secretary of State will lay the orders that determine what should be legally required to be part of the history curriculum and what should, therefore, be the subject of testing when we reach that stage. Having considered the advice of the National Curriculum Council, I have proposed that we should regard the study of history as looking back on events with a reasonable amount of historical perspective and that a distinction should be drawn between history and current affairs. There is nothing to stop pupils talking about important current affairs, but I do not believe that the law should require the study of contemporary events and characters, and examination on those events, as though they were part of the history syllabus.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, unlike some other countries that either are so new that they have no history at all or, if they have any, are somewhat ashamed of it, we have a long and glorious history which we should offer to all young people?

Pupils will have the opportunity to study our long and glorious British history, together with European history and some aspects of world history. I believe, however, that their study of important events in the Soviet Union, the middle east and other places should end at a point where it is possible to form an historical judgment on events. I have no objection to pupils' talking in the classroom about current affairs, but I do not believe that the law should say that that is part of the history curriculum.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, following a question from me, he was unable to place in the Library evidence to suggest that any political or other bias had been involved in the teaching of modern history —history relating to the past 30 years or so? Does he accept that a good two thirds of GCSE history curricula deal in an historical way with the events of the past 30 years and that that is quite distinct from dealing with them in a current-affairs way? Does he realise that his impulsive decision to exclude that period may overturn two thirds of GCSE curricula and does he accept that people are unlikely to have faith in a national curiculum if they think that it has become simply the partisan plaything of a particular Secretary of State?

I did not give political bias as the reason for my decision; I gave as my reason the need to look at matters in their historical perspective. I believe that the judgments on current affairs that pupils should properly form will be more mature and carry more weight if they are based on a study of the historical background.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to teach children hard historical facts and to give them firm dates so that they can relate fact to historical perspective? Is not it time to move away from the child-centred subjective interpretations that we have seen in the classroom so often over the past few years?

I see no point in the study of history unless it is taught in a way that enables the pupil to acquire some knowledge of the factual sequence of events and the activities of the personalities involved. When we move on to the testing of ability and attainment in history, we should pointedly include the testing of historical knowledge. That is not the sole point of education, but it is the essential basis of the understanding of any important subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals regarding the future of university education.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I met representatives of the CVCP on 4 February to discuss a range of matters. We expect to meet them again from time to time, when both immediate and longer-term issues will doubtless be on the agenda.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he explain the basis of the extraordinary decision to cut access funds for our higher education institutions to less than half their present level—from £23 million to £10 million in two years time? Does he accept that access funds have been much touted by his Government as a new and flexible instrument and have been extremely useful to the universities? They have been the eye of the needle, with the would-be British higher education student acting as the camel. Why, having built up the funds, does the Minister intend to take away more than half of them over the next two years?

We have introduced new access funds. They will be available for use at the discretion of higher education institutions to help students who may be in financial difficulties. By convention, the figures for the later years of the public exependiture survey are rounded down to the nearest £10 million. Provision for 1993–94 will be settled following the three-year review that was promised in the 1988 White Paper.

Was the strategy of student finance discussed at that meeting and will it be discussed in future, in the spirit of consultation and recognising that this is one of the key problems that we face?

I take my hon. Friend's point about the importance of consultation on the basis of a rational understanding of the requirements of institutions I am pleased about the exciting and rapid rate of expansion in higher education, right across the board. The rate of expansion has been greater and more creative energy and innovation have been witnessed in recent years in the polytechnics. I have no doubt, however, that the universities will wish to respond. We wish to ensure that the amounts of funding and the funding methodologies are sensibly designed to take account of the needs of universities.

When the Minister meets the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals does he intend to discuss with it the Secretary of State's plans, reported in The Independent on Sunday, to abolish the distinction between universities and polytechnics? Will he confirm that the Government are considering that matter? Does he agree that in order to overcome the binary divide it will be necessary to establish a joint funding council, common quality assurance mechanisms and safeguards for the existing research commitments at universities?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), some of the most vigorous expansion and some of the most creative innovation in higher education have occurred in the polytechnics in recent years. They are impatient to have the right to university status. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are following with great interest the debate which, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) recognises, raises complex and far-reaching issues.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the expansion that has taken place at the excellent university of Exeter and at other universities. When he considers future funding, may I ask him to pay particular attention to the need for funds for the repair and maintenance of the buildings of universities that were created in recent years?

I well understand why my hon. Friend takes such pride in the achievements of Exeter university. We have increased not inconsiderably the sums available for capital expenditure; about £200 million will be available for that purpose. Universities have been provided with considerable discretion and flexibility over borrowing, so Exeter university can look forward with some confidence to being able to provide the necessary facilities to support the expansion in student numbers to which undoubtedly it aspires.

Would it not be advisable for the Minister to meet the vice-chancellors in the near future—certainly before completion of the Committee stage of the British Technology Group Bill?

As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), we meet the vice-chancellors from time to time. Among other important matters is the funding of research and how universities can enter into the most constructive and productive relationship with private sponsors of research. I am pleased that university income from industrial and other sources for research has increased fivefold during the time that this Government have been in power.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to increase the interest of parents in the education of their children.

The Government have introduced a wide range of measures to extend the part parents play in their children's education, notably by giving parents a much wider choice of schools, by enabling them to seek grant-maintained status for their schools and by increasing the information available to parents on their children's progress.

Does my hon. Friend agree that education is very much a partnership between parents and schools and that it is quite wrong for some parents to expect the schools to take total responsibility for their children's education? Does he also agree that the time that parents spend with their children in the evenings and at weekends can in later years pay great educational dividends?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Many parents spend long periods helping their children. Through our various reforms—including the national curriculum and the reporting mechanism for parents—we shall be assisting those parents. I regret that too many children get stuck in front of the television set as soon as they arrive home from school, that there is too little discussion in the home and that too few books are available. Even the very best teachers and the very best schools cannot effectively educate children in a vacuum.

Does the Minister accept that parents in Bradford are very interested in their children's education and often take part in campaigns in support of the local authority's requests for more money to restore the city's crumbling schools? Is he aware that there are more than 600 temporary classrooms in use there? Surely it cannot be conducive to the provision of good education that some of those classrooms have been in use for so long that they need radical repair or replacement with more temporary classrooms. Does the Minister agree that it is time the Government accepted the representations from both Conservative and Labour majorities that provision be made for a decent level of education expenditure so that Bradford's crumbling schools may be restored?

Yes, that is why, in this year's settlement, there is a 15 per cent. increase in the capital available to Bradford. That is why many parents in Bradford have voted with their feet, both by supporting grant-maintained status for Bingley grammar school and by making application for a Bradford CTC. They know where good education is to be found.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to encourage local education authorities to reduce the number of non-teaching staff they employ.

In December we published proposals to require that, by April 1993, control of at least 85 per cent. of a local education authority's potential schools budget should be delegated to the school level. That is where the right decisions will be made.

Is not it a scandal that, out of every 10 education staff employed by local authorities four are in non-teaching jobs? Will my hon. Friend do more to ensure that resources intended for our schools reach their proper destination? Does he agree that local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled authorities, have a poor record in the education of our young people?

Yes. It is quite shocking that, out of their education budgets, authorities such as those in Cleveland and Coventry should make provision for almost as many non-teaching employees as teachers. We have set new requirements. All local education authorities could do more to delegate to the school level, and all should do so before April 1993.

Does the Minister agree that, however much is delegated to the school level, the main task is to help the teacher in the classroom? Does he agree that the employee ratio—people employed in classrooms, in education offices and in teacher back-up positions—is no measure of efficiency? Does he agree that what we want is proper back-up so that a professional job may be done in the classroom? We need adequate numbers of such people, and we need efficiency. Raw figures are not necessarily any measure of efficiency.

I do not agree. The best judge of the type of back-up that schools need are the heads, the teachers and the governors themselves. It is for them to decide what level, scope and scale of support services are necessary and for them, with their increased budgets, to decide where to purchase such services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made over the introduction of his policy to improve spelling standards in educational establishments.

We have made spelling a separate attainment target in English in the national curriculum. The systematic testing of spelling as part of the assessment arrangements for English will begin to be phased in from this summer. I am awaiting a response from the School Examinations and Assessment Council to my request that, in marking GCSE examinations, sensible account should be taken of bad spelling.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that teachers who resist the correction of spelling in subjects other than English do their pupils a great deal of harm? Does he agree that this is indicative, in our teaching system, of educationalists setting the agenda, rather than employers and parents, who are very keen that children should be good spellers? I am a convert—when I was at school I was a diabolical speller—and as an employer I would not take on a secretary who could not even fill in an application form using accurate spelling.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he is reassured by my experience, since spelling was raised again in my letter to the School Examinations and Assessment Council, that many teachers share his view and mine. The changes that we are making in the national curriculum and to the GCSE—when I get a response from the council—will lead to all schools realising the importance of spelling, which the public want to be part of the systematic teaching of all pupils.

We welcome the Government's somewhat late conversion to the recognition of the importance of spelling.—[Interruption.] Perhaps since the Government have been in office for 12 years, they will discover numeracy next. Why is it that during the past 12 years there has been no research on how to teach spelling effectively and no support to teacher education institutions to ensure that teachers know how to teach youngsters how to spell? What a 12-year legacy.

I am not sure that the subjects of reading, spelling and grammar require much more research than they have already had. They require good practice. Through the national curriculum and the changes that I am proposing to the GCSE, I trust that that good practice will soon come about.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people believe that spelling was taught effectively in days gone by and that there is no need for more research on how to teach spelling and grammar? Will my right hon. and learned Friend look back a few years and see how it was done then, and remind teachers of the effectiveness of teaching in former times?

I do not usually join in arguments about whether standards have fallen. However, it is the experience of most of us that standards of spelling have dropped in most of the correspondence in which we engage. It is important to tell teachers not how to teach spelling but to underline the importance of it as we introduce the national curriculum and modify the examination system.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make it his policy fully to fund the award by the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions through central Government.

The cost of the Government's proposals for implementing the Interim Advisory Committee's recommendations in 1991–92 has already been fully funded by the Government's decisions made last year on local government expenditure. The 1991–92 education standard spending totals announced last autumn allow for the full cost of these proposals, as well as for the follow-through cost of the 1990–91 teachers' pay award, and also include an element for the exercise of local pay discretions.

Why are the Government watering down the award when the IAC—a Government-appointed body—has reported to them that teachers' morale is at rock bottom and that vacancy levels have deteriorated appreciably over the past four years? When will the Government recognise that there is a serious crisis in our education system?

We have accepted in full the recommendations of the Interim Advisory Committee and we are phasing them in. [Interruption.] The result will be that by this time next year teachers will have a 9·5 per cent. increase and head teachers will have an increase of over 12 per cent. at a time when inflation is expected by all commentators to be 6 per cent. or below. As a result of this award, teachers will receive a much greater increase in their annual income than other groups are likely to receive in the coming year. That is a good thing. It is especially good that the IAC has introduced new incentives and discretions to enable us to concentrate on classroom performance, shortage subjects and other aspects involved in creating a good career structure for the teachers in our schools.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this will do much to improve morale in the teaching profession? Will he look particularly at one of the recommendations of the Select Committee report, which urged that all teacher awards in future should keep pace with inflation and not allow us to return to a position in which we have to have the hikes such as we had under the Houghton and Clegg awards?

As I have already said, everybody expects inflation to fall to 6 or 5·5 per cent. by the end of next year. A general pay increase of 9·5 per cent., with 12·75 per cent. for heads and deputies, is far ahead of inflation. Teachers are already 30 per cent. ahead of inflation during the lifetime of this Government. They have already enjoyed an increase in their real living standards and that will obviously increase substantially as a result of the Government's decisions for next year.

Can the Secretary of State explain to teachers why, when the Prime Minister says that education is such an important issue and when Conservative Members say that the country is enjoying some form of economic miracle, teachers' pay increases are being "phased", to use the Secretary of State's words? Is not that a further indication that the Government do not value education or teachers?

The Government have phased the increases to take into account the inflation assumptions for the relevant year—next year—and also the pay expectations of other groups in the population. The increase in real terms of teacher's income, which is already 30 per cent. ahead of inflation, will go up substantially next year. The money is being distributed in such a way as to reward especially the good classroom teachers, those in shortage subjects and those who take responsibilities in our education system. The pay award is far ahead of the pay awards likely to go to those in equivalent occupations and it is right that teachers should get that preferential treatment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February 1991.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also called on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and presented her with a gift from the Cabinet to mark her 90th year. In addition to my duties in the House, I will be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

It was a cold weather payment.

Order.

While welcoming the Cabinet's recognition of my constituent, the Queen Mother, in that way [Interruption.]

Order.

Would the Prime Minister say why, when he came to the House last week to announce the waiver of the exceptionally severe weather payment seven-day condition, he gave no inkling that it was to last 24 hours and that within four days, his Minister for Social Security and Disabled People would announce that things were to go back to where they are now. The "now you see it, now you don't" approach cannot be the way to look after those who are so heavily dependent upon that payment.

If there is doubt about that point, let me seek to remove it beyond peradventure at the moment. As I said last week, given the exceptionally severe weather, we wanted to ensure that vulnerable groups would take appropriate steps to keep warm so we waived the seven-day qualifying period. Given the continuation of severe weather since then, we shall once again be waiving the seven-day period. Of course, we shall continue to monitor the situation carefully and if the cold weather continues we shall take similar measures.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

While my right hon. Friend was enjoying his much publicised breakfast at the weekend, the people of Lithuania were voting in a referendum. Does he agree that the desire for independence by the Lithuanians, as expressed in the result of that referendum, should be heeded by the Soviet Union?

I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend's point. I would like to see the Soviet authorities negotiate with the elected representatives of the Baltic authorities about their aspirations. That is a point I hope to be able to put to President Gorbachev when I meet him next month.

Does the Prime Minister share our deep concern that unemployment, business bankruptcies and factory gate prices are all up while investment and output are down? Whose policies does he blame for that—the current Chancellor's or the previous Chancellor's?

I think that everyone shares the concern about bankruptcies and unemployment. We also share the considerable degree of pleasure at the growth that there has been in recent years, at the growth in the number of businesses—which, even last year, was running at more than 1,000 a week—and at the prospects that will continue to exist for this country as we increasingly drive inflation downwards.

Does the Prime Minister understand that he has taken many of those new businesses—and longer-established businesses—straight into slump with his policies? Why will he not now cut interest rates, use a more sensible system of managing demand and try to stop the slump now, before the damage gets even worse and goes on for even longer?

The right hon. Gentleman should know that the generalised slogans that he uses simply will not do. Let me quote to him what even The Guardian said of the alternatives:

"As for the Opposition parties, their call for interest rate cuts with no accompanying recognition of the economic realities is politically opportunistic and economically naive."

May I put it to the Prime Minister that, this very week, factory gate prices are up, unemployment will be up and bankruptcies are up? Is that what he intends to continue to do? If so, I put it to him that his policies are hurting just about everyone and working for just about no one.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that our policies are working. I believe that that will become increasingly apparent. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the rise in output prices. I must say that I think that that is a suspect figure. In any event, the January figure may well reflect the delayed and continued impact of the autumn increase in oil prices. Throughout this year, the right hon. Gentleman will see a continuing fall in the rise of inflation.

Although at this moment it may seem bizarre to imagine that there could be advantages in transferring from road to rail, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in better times, when the Department of Transport appraises capital projects it allows for both freight and passenger savings on roads?

In so far as I could hear the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I believe that I agree with him. British Rail has a substantial investment level at present; indeed, it is the highest level for 30 years. As the former chairman said not long ago:

"the investment programme is about the maximum rate we can physically manage."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is not the Prime Minister ashamed that an estimated 50 young homeless people are sleeping rough on the streets of Stoke-on-Trent? They are not eligible for his severe weather payments or his emergency aid. What place is there for them in his classless society?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, on a number of occasions I have expressed my concern and outlined the action that we are taking to deal with the position of young people who are sleeping rough. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning set out some policies some time ago and explained that a considerable amount of resources would be devoted to implementing them. One of the problems that is recognised and acknowledged by the voluntary groups—if not, perhaps, by every hon. Member—is that some of those who sleep rough have every option to go into shelters but frequently do not exercise it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of press reports which speculate that the public sector borrowing requirement for 1991–92 will be £9 billion? Does he agree that during the forthcoming 12 months it is important that the Government apply the same discipline to themselves as companies in the private sector are having to apply, and that Government spending should take into account prevailing economic conditions, not pretend that they do not exist?

We must certainly always take into account the prevailing economic conditions in terms of public expenditure control. That is certainly what we shall do.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister recall one of his early votes in the House of Commons on 20 December 1979, when he voted to break the link between pensions and earnings? Does he realise that as a result of that, pensioners have not enjoyed increases in their standard of living through general improvements and that they are now worse off by £22 a week for a married couple and £13 a week for a single pensioner? Does he realise that if those links had not been broken, people would have had sufficient money to pay for fuel, make sure that they had enough to eat and put on warm clothing and so combat the cold weather? Does not the Prime Minister realise that against that background, the announcement that he has made today of the extra £1 heating allowance is extremely miserly?

The hon. Gentleman is being very selective in the figures that he quotes. If he cares to examine the degree of net disposable income among all sectors of the community, including the elderly, he will find that it has risen substantially throughout the past decade.

Given that our nation likes a modest flutter as much as it likes a traditional Happy Eater breakfast, does my right hon. Friend care to give some encouragement today to those of us who favour the concept of a national lottery designed to provide additional resources for sports, the arts and museums?

My hon. Friend raises an intriguing question.

To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's present policy towards Sir Roy Griffiths's recommendation that local authorities should perform the lead role in the provision of community care.

The Government's policy on community care remains as set out in the White Paper "Caring For People" and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Local authorities begin implementation of those policies in April this year.

What steps does the Prime Minister intend to take to deal with the increasing problems of many elderly people in residential care who have witnessed a growing number of closures of private and voluntary sector homes as a result of the care gap and inadequate income support? Will he absolutely insist that elderly people do not suffer, in spite of the need for social service and social work departments to reduce their expenditure in order to avoid poll tax capping, even though the real anxiety is to respond to elderly people's needs, which they recognise in their own communities?

The concerns for elderly people that the hon. Gentleman sets out and which local authorities have are well understood and appreciated. He weakens his case by his remarks about community charge capping, not least because a large number of those authorities that face capping do so because of a flagrant and wilful abuse of their expenditure in many aspects.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable anxiety in local government, not least among the staff of part III residential homes and also, of course, the residents of those homes, that many local authorities feel obliged to put such homes into the private or charitable sector, thus creating considerable instability? Will my right hon. Friend take account of the anxiety, particularly among elderly people and their families, who are deeply upset by the instability that is being created?

What we are seeking to do is to ensure the maximum availability of the appropriate sort of accommodation and to ensure that it is provided in the most cost-effective manner. That accommodation may, on occasion, be in the public or the private sector, but it is the quantum of assistance with which I know my hon. Friend is most concerned.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister recall that shortly before he became Prime Minister he said that the subject that he cares most about is education? He repeated those sentiments at the Young Conservatives' conference at the weekend. I have in my hand the sum total of all those speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman on education since 1979—it averages one line a year. Can the Prime Minister put in the Library any other speeches on this subject, which is so close to his heart?

The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically fatuous

Withdraw.

Order.

If colleagues insist, I shall withdraw "uncharacteristically". For the bulk of the period in the House since 1979 I have either been in the Whips' Office, and thus unable to speak, or a Minister with other departmental responsibilities. If the hon. Gentleman had had what undoubtedly would have been an education to him from listening to the speeches that I have made outside the House he would not have asked that question.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Despite my right hon. Friend and I both having left state schols at 16 and therefore, perhaps being poor educational advertisements [Interruption.] I said perhaps. Would my right hon. Friend underline his determination that standards and diversity in our state schools are enhanced and improved, and above all, that the staying-on rate of students beyond 16 and 18 is increased?

I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's point. Education is undoubtedly the key in the future to opening new paths for people, not just people with high abilities, but, of course, people with much lesser abilities as well. We want an education system that rewards dedicated teachers and provides education in the state sector of which we can be proud. That is what we shall be increasingly reaching towards throughout the Conservative Governments of the 1990s.